yes dear, your email do reach me :-). oopss....may be that's because
my email is among the recipient.
on a serious note, i have been receiving multiple bounce emails....as
shown below....pointless to complain and alerting the kernelnewbies
email id if it is problematic - which is why Rik's email is in here.
Rik, any problem with the server?
Thanks.
PS: Bounced emails as below:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
[email protected]
Technical details of permanent failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn
more at http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7720
[forlond.surriel.com. (0): Connection timed out]
[humbolt.nl.linux.org. (5): Connection timed out]
[forlond.surriel.com. (15): Connection timed out]
----- Original message -----
Received: by 10.181.138.13 with SMTP id q13mr1807113bkn.42.1223654468664;
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.228.4 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:01:08 +0800
From: "Peter Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Blizek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CLONE_IO
Cc: kernelnewbies <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Balraj Dahiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am not receiving any mail from kernelnewbies for last couple of days.
>
> Is there any problem there?
>
> Thanks,
> Balraj
>
> --- On Thu, 10/9/08, Peter Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Peter Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: CLONE_IO
> To: "kernelnewbies" <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008, 8:20 AM
>
> What is CLONE_IO used for? What is the definition / meaning of I/O
> context sharing between parent and child?
>
> In fact, from header file:
>
> #define CLONE_FS 0x00000200 /* set if fs info shared
> between processes */
> #define CLONE_FILES 0x00000400 /* set if open files shared
> between processes */
> #define CLONE_IO 0x80000000 /* Clone io context */
>
> These three looked seemingly the same/related.....differences among them?
>
> And in kernel/fork.c:
>
> /*
> * Share io context with parent, if CLONE_IO is set
> */
> if (clone_flags & CLONE_IO) {
> tsk->io_context = ioc_task_link(ioc);
> if (unlikely(!tsk->io_context))
> return -ENOMEM;
> the io_context field is set, why and for what purpose? Thanks.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peter Teoh
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
> "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Peter Teoh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
